Category Archives: Enablement

HCV method of treatment claims invalid for lack of enablement and written description

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Gilead Sciences Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1691 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of JMOL to Gilead finding HCV treatment patent invalid for enabled affirmed; FC panel also finds lack of … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms DC’s grant of SJ, finding Enzo’s claims invalid for lack of enablement

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al. (Becton Dickinson (BD), GeneOhm, Aboott) Docket Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546 (public opinion: July 25, 2019) Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ for invalidity of Enzo’s claims for lack … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2018-00001 (US 9,539,268 B2) Final Written Decision April 29, 2019 Brief summary: GG found to have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Antecip’s claims related to zoledronic acid and methods for using the same to treat arthritis are … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2018-00001 (US 9,539,268 B2) Final Written Decision April 29, 2019 Brief summary: GG found to have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Antecip’s claims related to zoledronic acid and methods for using the same to treat arthritis are … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Regeneron et al. (Feb. 25, 2019 Update)

Docket No. 2017-1480 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 5, 2017 Update (Feb. 25, 2019): DC jury verdict (Case No. 1:14-cv-01317-RGA) found ‘165 claims 7 and 15 (“binds to at least D238” or “V380”, respectively) enabled but lacking written description; ‘165 claims … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Written description | Leave a comment

Concert Pharm., Inc. v. Incyte Corp.

Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00034 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,662,335 B2) Decision not to institute PGR January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Concert’s Petition to institute PGR of Incyte’s US 9,662,335 B2 regarding deuterated ruxolitinib was denied. Summary: Concert filed a Petition to institute … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Enablement, Post-grant review, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Epistar Corp., et al.

Docket No. 2016-2576 to 2581, 2016-2591 to 2595 PROST, MOORE, REYNA July 25, 2018 Brief summary: DC denial of Everlight’s motion for JMOL that is invalid for lack of enablement (§ 112) reversed (the FC panel explaining it “can safely … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement | Leave a comment